Past Simple и Present Perfect

[Soficosav]

Помогите!
Не понимаю в чём контекстная разница между "They went" и "They have gone". Т.е. "Они ушли" и "Они уже ушли".
Обычно я стараюсь представить ситуацию, что бы прочувствовать разницу, но здесь всё глухо. Например, стучу в дверь, открывает дворецкий моих друзей)) Я у него прошу позвать хозяев. Он же может сказать оба варианта "Они ушли" и "Они уже ушли"?


Или "I did my homework" и "I have done my homework". Разве эти два варианта не равнозначны? Они же оба передают главный смысл, что домашняя работа сделана. И эта информация имеет значение на текущий момент, не зря же я о ней упомянула сейчас.

[acapnotic]

Soficosav, нет, если речь о текущем моменте, используйте перфект. Это настоящее время (Present). Если речь о прошлом, используйте Past Simple. Дворецкий описывает текущую ситуацию с хозяевами, поэтому использует настоящее (совершенное) время. Вы описываете текущую ситуацию с домашним заданием, поэтому также логично использование настоящего (совершенного).

[Soficosav]

текущую ситуацию

Но я simple тоже текущая ситуация. Оба предложения имеют право на жизнь. Оба несут один смысл, что хозяев дома нет.

[acapnotic]

Soficosav, если вы в этом уверены, тогда непонятно, какую разницу вы ищете. Ведь по-вашему её там нет.

[GlebNoNePyanykh]

Оба несут один смысл, что хозяев дома нет.

Смысл не один и тот же.
They went - ушли/уходили, но может потом вернулись.
They have gone - ушли и их точно нет дома.

Почитайте здесь правила, сделайте упражнение и все понятно будет.

[Yety]

"They have gone"
"I have done my homework"

Подводя итог вышесказанному,...)
Перфект - время present, настоящее, поэтому в этом значении употребляется как эквивалент утверждений в настоящем времени:
They are not here. <= They have gone out.
Их здесь нет, или, другими словами, Они вышли.
My homework is ready. <= I have done my homework.
Домашка сделана, или, другими словами, Я сделал дз.

В противовес present perfect время past simple - это время сугубо прошедшее, *историческое*. Потому употребляется, когда указано (или подразумевается) время прошлого события:
They went out a minute ago.
I did my homework on Saturday night.

Если же прошлое время не указано, то оно подразумевается, и прошлое событие стоит как бы в контексте прошедшего повествования из предполагаемых последовательных событий:
[Then] they went out. [And then they had dinner at a restaurant, and after that came back.]
[And then] I did my homework. [After that I had coffee and watched TV.]

[Easy-Breezy English]

Но я simple тоже текущая ситуация. Оба предложения имеют право на жизнь. Оба несут один смысл, что хозяев дома нет.

Так без контекста и ваших намерений не будет разницы.

Present Perfect позволяет связать прошлое и настоящее в одно целое.

• I've done my homework already, so now I can go shopping.
  Вы подчеркиваете, что действие в прошлом напрямую влияет на ваше теперешнее состояние. Почему я могу спокойно идти за покупками? Потому что уже сделал домашку.

• I really need to talk to Steve, but he's gone out, and he's not answering his phone.
  Здесь вы подчеркиваете актуальность события в прошлом и его незаконченность - он ушел и еще не вернулся, а мне так нужно (сейчас) с ним поговорить.

При использовании Past Simple вы эту связь разрубаете.

• There wasn't much homework today, so I did it really quickly.

• You went out to get a soda and it took you three hours to come back!

Ну и еще раз стоит упомянуть, что в американском английском выбор времени в таких случаях в большой степени зависит от личных предпочтений говорящего. Можно так, можно эдак.

[PavelKiev]

Не понимаю в чём контекстная разница

Без особого контекста, как констатация какого-то факта, фразы равнозначны. Американцы скорее используют PS, британцы, возможно, PP.

[Michelangelo]

"They went" и "They have gone". Т.е. "Они ушли" и "Они уже ушли".

Но ведь "They went" - они ездили, а не "поехали"
Они ушли или Они уже ушли - это одно и тоже.

They went - ушли/уходили, но может потом вернулись.

Не "ушли", а "ездили" или "уезжали", т.е. это было в прошлом. "Уехали/ушли" - это говорит, что их сейчас нет.

Оба несут один смысл, что хозяев дома нет.

Презент перфект - НЕТ дома
Паст индефинит - неизвестно - известно, что раньше (10 лет назад?) они куда-то отбывали, вернулись ли - неизвестно.

[PavelKiev]

"They went"

Обычно говорят "They left (for sth)" = "They are not here any more"
Даже вот так можно "They already left", только ученикам начального уровня об этом говорить не нужно.

[Michelangelo]

PavelKiev, "They went" имеет немного другое значение чем "They left"
Это как "They departed
"They went" - это нейтральное такое себе "Они ездили...(куда-то)", и такого значения у "They left" нет.

[PavelKiev]

"They went" - это нейтральное такое себе

Это вообще ничто, русская калька какая-то.
They went away, went out, went in и пр. - вот эти фразы имеют смысл.
Просто They went забудьте и никогда не говорите.

[Michelangelo]

PavelKiev, вы бы ТС сказали, что такого не может быть "They went", а то он думает, что это то же что и "They have gone"
Скажите ему, что так не говорят. "They have gone" - так говорят, а "They went" - не говорят :)

[Michelangelo]

on the second thought, why not use "They went", I am sure this sentence could exist in a certain context.

A: They went abroad last year.
B: Are you kidding? It couldn't be.
A: But it could. They went.

[Yety]

on second thought

Таки:

A: But it could. (But) They went did!

[VictorB]

A: They went abroad last year.
B: Are you kidding? It couldn't be.
A: But it could. They went.

A: But it could. (But) They went did!

Not sure about idiomaticalness of "It couldn't be" as a stand-alone phrase in the context of the dialogue, I think that " They went there" would work too, together with "They did!"
As for "It couldn't be", "They couldn't have" might be a better choice, IMHO.

[Yety]

Not sure about idiomaticalness of "It couldn't be" as a stand-alone phrase in the context of the dialogue

Probably not. Yet, in a past narrative in the reported speech:

Blissful Kisses - Page 70
Audra Claire · 2018
Angelica couldn't straighten the thoughts that spun around her head. She needed to get back to the quiet of her apartment and center herself. It just could not be.

"I feel quite a headache coming on. I hope you'll excuse me," Angelica offered to Bella, dazed, as she picked up her wrap and got up to leave. "Are you sure you're ok? I could walk with you to make sure you get ...

Ordinarily Sarah
Sarah Elizabeth Rose · 2016
I didn't want to think about it. It just could not be. The day of the wedding came quickly. I arrived early that morning to see if there were any last minute arrangements I could help with. As it turned out, Annie needed lots of help with lots of things.

Women's University Narratives, 1890-1945, Part II: Volume II
Anna Bogen · 2017
"But ill? Not... not ill? Oh no. But the lamb just could not be ill?"
"Well, she is, Irma said so. She went there and saw her. And Fortescue's looking after her.” “Oh no. Not ... not that.” Somehow ... somehow it was almost worse. Well, wasn't it? To think. Looking after the babe ... Oh, but ill? Oh no. It just could not be.

Persephone: Thomas Kydd 18
Julian Stockwin · 2017
It just could not be, and he refused to believe it. The pain was intense for he'd brought suffering to her, albeit unintentionally, and that was unforgivable. He fought his grief at the knowledge that, whatever happened now, ...

Thus, in an exchange/direct speech in the present tense:

The Lost Gold: Debuting the "One Hour Novel"
Kaushik Yegnan · 2019
Silence and darkness. The mind rushing to and forth [sic - Y.] centuries. Searching through ages, searching for that one straw to clutch onto, gasping for oxygen .... Oh bloody heavens ... . It cannot be. It just cannot be.

Sherlock Holmes in The Nautilus Adventure
Joseph W. Svec III, ‎Lidia B. Svec · 2016
Our conversation was loudly interrupted as Sherlock pounded a [sic - Y.] fist on the table and exclaimed, "It cannot be! It just cannot be!” I glanced in his direction with concern and asked, “What is it Sherlock? What's wrong? Did you discover where the communication was intercepted?

"They couldn't have" might be a better choice,

or "They can't have", FTM.

[VictorB]

Probably not.

"It Can't Be!" still sounds Runglish to me. "It can't be true!" sounds okay though:)

[Yety]

"It Can't Be!" still sounds Runglish to me.

It's only natural for you to feel it that way. Yet, it's not.)
Actually, the fact that the title of the Russian flick is officially translated into English using this phrase only goes to show that there's nothing Ruinglish about it.

Besides, there is also It Can't Be.

And this It Can't Be, too:

[VictorB]

Yety,
Okay, if it can be, let it be:)

[Michelangelo]

They went there

We (or they?) use auxiliary verbs instead of actual verbs in order not to repeat ourselves (themselves).
We often use "did" instead of "went" when we are sure that our listener knows what we mean. If we are not sure, or want to underline the word, we have the right to repeat is, therefore "They went" in that context can go.

Actually those "did" instead of actual verbs sounds a little bit too bookish. It is like we were taught at school. In real life they can use some other words instead.

"It couldn't be" is also OK for briefness. They always try to make their speeches brief unless they are politicians (my idea of their usage of words as opposite to the usage in text-books).
Even those textbooks written by English teachers, live people often criticize and say that they don't speak like they teach in textbooks.
For me, it is much easier to speak bookish as compared with real usage of words and phrases.

[Easy-Breezy English]

Not sure about idiomaticalness of "It couldn't be" as a stand-alone phrase in the context of the dialogue,

Although there's nothing wrong with the phrase, I agree that it doesn't really work too well in this particular dialogue. It tends to be used to express astonishment rather than disagreement:

- Look, it's Mr. Roberts, our fifth grade math teacher!
- OMG, it can't be! I thought the guy was long dead!!

Actually those "did" instead of actual verbs sounds a little bit too bookish.

Not at all. They are very common even in playground-type exchanges with the subjects dropped:

- You are stupid!
- Am not!
- Are so!

-You pooped your pants yesterday.
- Did not!
- Did so!

[VictorB]

there's nothing wrong with the phrase

Easy-Breezy English, I'd never come across this expression, so to me, it looked like a word-for-word translation
from Russian to be taken for Runglish.
Now I know it's legit and I'm more than happy about it:)

They are very common even in playground-type exchanges with the subjects dropped

So, can it be reduced to "Can't be!"?
Also, if "It can be" is legit too, will "can" in it be stressed in speech?
If yes, would it be easy-breezy to not take the one for the other? :)

[Yety]

If we are not sure, or want to underline the word, we have the right to repeat is, therefore "They went" in that context can go.

The verb itself may have to be repeated when the focus of the exchange is the lexical meaning of the verb and the argument is about the contradictory interpretations of a situation with antonyms in action:
- Then they came home.
- No! They went (there), but never came.

With 'went' being so broad in meaning, it's particularly hard to think of some natural context for an exchange.

We (or they?) use auxiliary verbs instead of actual verbs in order not to repeat ourselves (themselves).
We often use "did" instead of "went" when we are sure that our listener knows what we mean.

And the listener in your dialogue surely knows what is meant.
The auxiliary is used to substitute for the verb when any part of the previous statement is disputed, and especially if the occurence of the action itself is negated - which is the case in your dialogue.

You might find this of interest:

133.
...
4. EMPHASIS
И на оператор падает ударение в таких случаях:

Why don't you work hard? – But I 'do work hard.
Why didn't she give him the book? – But she 'did give him the book.

Предложение 'But she 'gave him the book' с ударением на gave будет иметь уже другой смысл – что она именно дала/подарила ему книгу, а не так, что продала или он ее украл.

"It couldn't be" is also OK for briefness.

Not in the present tense, though.
You can only come across the phrase in inner monologues rendered in the past, with a backshift in the 'reported speech'.

[Yety]

It tends to be used to express astonishment rather than disagreement

disbelief, I'd say..=)

with the subjects dropped

Yep, EVEN with the subjects often dropped.=)

- Am not!
- Are so!

https://getyarn.io/yarn-find?text=%20am ... 20are%20so

- Did not!
- Did so!

https://getyarn.io/yarn-find?text=%20di ... 20did%20so